69 million page views

Afghan traditions and Clinton's oppressed darlings

Reader comment on item: The Deceits of Bridges TV
in response to reader comment: ...and, mea culpa

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Mar 7, 2009 at 09:46

Hi, Merry!

> As to anything Afghanistan beyond that which directly affects U.S. interests, I'm just out of my league in any discussion and I'll defer to your obvious awareness. It wasn't until after 9/11 that I knew anything about the place other than the destruction of the giant statues (which made me sick).<

Perhaps it was better to ignore that nasty country. For me personally Afghanistan is a bloody cesspool which neither the Russians nor the Americans could ever desinfect, let alone clear or recultivate.

I am sure the Americans might learn much from the Soviet experience. But the lesson is no optmistic one. In his book "Tragedy and valor of Afghanistan" Soviet general Alexander Lyakhovskiy quotes a conversation between a Soviet advisor and Hafizullah Amin, the first of Afghan 'revolutionary' dictators. When some Pashtoon tribes revolted against him he ordered the total annihilation of the tribe by dint of planes and tanks. When the Russian protested Amin explained to him in a business-like manner: " You don't have the slightest idea of what our people are like! If a tribe takes up arms they will never lay them down! The only solution is to exterminate them all without discrimination - young and old. These are our proven traditions! What's wrong about them? "

> On the other hand, US foreign policy is supposed to be based on US National interests. I don't apologize for that. I only wish I could have a scintilla of confidence that US National interests will be at least a consideration to our current Administration, and I dearly hope I'll be proven wrong in my best guess on that score...<

I hope too that you'll turn out to be right. In the meantime I am afraid that the present decion-makers in teh White House in the 'best' traditions of their predecessors - take their own particular party interests for 'national interests'. This will necessarily lead to many decisions which are quite contrary to US national interests. E.g. Obama seems to be bent to selling Israel and its security for vague Moslem symathies and promises while the Moslem shelling of Jewish settlements will continue.

> I can't argue with you regarding Kosovo and Bosnia --- my take at the time was that it was a "wag the dog" action to deflect attention from a domestic scandal, and when I realized who we were apparently backing, I thought it a travesty because their Serbian "enemy" had covered our backside during WWII. I quite frankly believed we were on the wrong side if we had any business taking a side.<

If only all Americans knew how wrong and evil the side they had supported was!

The country whose leaders love to hypocrtically declare what good Christians they are ; the country where even former Moslems prefer to make their presidential campaigns in protective Christian feathers is responsible for the most heinous acts of extermination of Christianity the moment it seems to serve some 'larger' national interests. The destroyed medieval churches or monasteries of Kosovo/Metohiya have no doubt made many Moslem enthusiastic about America. With such an ally jihad seems to have a great future !

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/churchpics/list.htm

If you wish, you can see Clinton's oppressed darlings in action .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2EFFBpoOu4

But ,sure, I don't want to say it's something unprecedented. In 1974 the same country gave half Cyprus to the Moslem barbarians coming from Turkey. Now all traces of the Christian past in the norther part the island visited by St. Paul have been obliterated. The "secularists" of Anakara saw to it that Northern Cyprus became Allah's land again - with churches levelled to the ground or changed into mosques or stables, with new magnificent mosques built everywhere, with fanatical imams, daily azans and all other Islamic paraphernalia.

>I don't hold a high opinion of Amnesty International, et al; Those "do gooder" groups are seldom interested in "doing good" when the abusers are aligned with their own political interests (which seems to boil down to annihilation of freedom and liberty). And, the only lawyers interested in "presumption of innocence" are criminal defense practitioners, and I'm not convinced theirs is a principled stand as opposed to a legal strategy.<

The principle in itself is correct and very humane on condition it is applied to the right sort of people. Don't forget that our law has been created to serve and preserve our European civilization and applied the human type that carried and incorporated that civilization. The tacit premise of the law was that the set of persons affacted by it shared the same values as the law-giver whom they acknowledge as worthy of regulating their affairs.

Now with muticulturalism and other social engineering experiments we get a tribal mentality and values instead. With the influx of new barbarians to "enrich" our culture the prepmises of our legal system are no longer valid. When nevertheless applied to the barbarians 'the presumption of innocence' is a disaster and a positive incentive to comit crime. In tribal/primitive mentality crime is something positive and natural. As Solon remarked about the 'best' laws : "For whom and when?"

I know , our lawers don't care much about Solon. They know better than Solon. They prefer to live in the blessed dreamland of the universality of our values and the laws based on them. Small wonder that with this legal utopia in force the world is sinking deeper and deeper into lawlessness and violence! The best law applied to wrong people at a wrong historical moment can't but produce these nasty effects.

Best regards, Jan

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Afghan traditions and Clinton's oppressed darlings by Ianus

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)